-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
Mats_SX said:
Which could also be great in establishing a sort of balance of power between large nations (so AI would need to be "aware" of such abilities as well).
Mats_SX said:
Heh great minds thinks alike aye ?
EDIT: Ohh and it would help make the Proclaim Guarantee taken more serious.
Instead of breaking up alliances one can defend without a whole alliance. The major problem is also that you gain nothing from the nation you help. If you help a nation there should be made better relations with them cause of it.
It would certainly be a good feature in Multiplayer.Garbon said:
Another suggestion is to make it moddable the amount of nations one can keep in an alliance. This would mean you can protect all your vassals, and still not risk them if helping another human nation in a war.
Mats_SX said:
I think it could be great from a single player perspective as well. An obvious example would be what went down between Charles V, Francis and Henry VIII. As it stands with alliances always been large groupings of 4-5ish that last for 10 years, there is very little quick reaction for balancing. I don't want it to be the standard BB wars thing as I don't want suicidal small nations...but perhaps a situation where AI Austria/Spain realizes that it isn't in its best interests to let AI France take all of Italy. As it stands now, the large ai nations largely fear one another.
This could be idea but problem with current engine is it is impossible to decide a tech will raise to a specified level and you can only increase or decrease by an amount of points and decreasing points is only for current level.beregic said:hmm, why not just making MORE infra/trade "levels"
For example, if you are just 1 point before next level and it costed 5000 points for next level, command for -3000 will have an impact. But impact will be null if next level was just reached. There is a huge difference for only 1 "missing" point.
OTOH, adding 3000 points will have an effect in this case, you will reach next level and have 2999 extra points. It is possible to gain several levels this way, even if unwanted.
It shouldn't be part of the engine and should be handled by events for moddability purpose.Lord Finnish said:
We already have limitations, no need to add some others. This is even the opposite I have in mind.
And, maybe, vassals not counting in this amount.Mats_SX said:
Another linked problem is one of your vassals outside your alliance declaring war to another vassal that is inside your alliance... Does it really make sense without breaking vassalization first? Currently, overlord will always be in trouble.
YodaMaster said:
but there is no possible way to "break-up" the 10 levels in more "segments"?(that's what i meant as main idea in my previous post). such as have 60 infra/trade levels?? becouse , for example, the naval and land tech do not affect game play much( even if it is impossible to DECIDE) since having 60 levels allows for greater choice and "paths" as moving from one to another frequentlly and with a practical reason to do so especially in late game.
yes gaining the extra levels is an exploit i am using it all the time ( like , as a pagan or penalty "known areas" factors, reseach infra for 100+years and then upon map exchanges or conversions i get infra within 3 months. can only switch to a superior level once/month every month).
YodaMaster said:
also , to me, would make absolute no logical sense to loose LEVELS( investment yes, but not WHOLE levels). i am glad that this particular aspect is not possible
. as no nation in the history has ever gave UP any type of advancements away( yes , some lost technology but that only could happen upon thousends of years or brutal natural disasters wich is not the case at all in eu2 frame). certain nations will REMAIN "backward" but never actually go NEGATIVE and loosing the "little" that they DO know. loosing investments within a specific levels makes sense in reasoning certain bad economic choices of one sort of anther. but the LEVEL represents overall progress, can not be "lost" ( would be another case of balancing for simulation outcomes only, and not the logical reality within historical frames).
Everything is possible but changing the number of levels will not solve the limitations of current script engine for involved commands.
YodaMaster said:
i think this will only create problems, especially for my style of play...i always make as many vassals as possible including the majors, so sometimes i end up in situations where WHOLE europe is vassal of mine. beeing able to get them all in alliance......well you guess right..there would be no wars :rofl: .
i like the PRESENT system on this aspects becouse it is quiet HARD to manage who i should keep or let go , upon vassals fighting each other
or , what i generally do , i ally NONE of them, but that is tricky tsince i constantlly need too spend money help with relations "here" and "there" making sure they do not break.( a vassal dowing another vassal makes drastic relations reductions between me and the one that DOWed)..
Mats_SX said:
that would have WORSE implications on game play at least to say. as a matter of fact would be better if alliances are reduced to 3 identities not the current 4( can be more but only if events help along for that posibility). as i mentioned above, i can easilly get all europe, or at least my religion within same alliance then
would be rather "lazzy" of me to achive this objective since the only thing left to do then is sit back, wait for bb decrease, and annex from time to time..
having the vassals WAR EACH OTHER is "fun". might be annoying to the player i AGREE, but unlike certain FORCED events or modding paths, here you have a CHOICE to make starting with the plan as WHY would you vassal someone, and for what ends, etc
YodaMaster said:
do they really need to be solved? i mean towards what end? ONLY to "fit" the posibility of having more commands?
to be more precise, having extra commands for modding purposes i am sure will be gret for you, will allow more flexibility or ease the amount of date u need to imput in sequence; but my question is why would you need any command s for this particular issue? once you have more levels i think the problem will be solved at there could be REAL neighbour bonus when it comes to infra or trade
also that would make more variety in national economies as england for example could be helped along better in showing its trading empire by jumping it up a FEW levels in front of others when comes to trade. and the increments for bonus given by each trade/infra level will become less/level wich means that some nations will have GREATER or LESS chances to compete in a particular "arena"so does not that HELP? at least to a ceratin extent.
Last edited:
one aspect of the game that i have not seen many comments about (or i missed them) is regarding the neighbour bonus.
would be nice to chanel that bonus( wich has GREAT impact for a "complete" game ; aka reaching 1819). the present system is too chaotic and simplistic as it is based on tech groups ONLY or very limited as such ( am i correct?). especially im mp( for better fun and real impact) but generally.
example: in mp (no matter how "arrogant" superior stance one nation has), it will always demand to have reliable allies. so lets say that i as nation "a" would research infra only and the ally nation "b" would do land. in the end BOTH our nations would profit from a general advancement at the detriment of others that were not as able to make such a strong "team" or hesitate in their objective and try to "bite" left and right with NO CONSEQUENCES over realistic outcomes of the history itself. yes, backstubbing is a FACT of life and nations will always do that, but neighborhood bonus would create DEPENDABLE relationships that would have DIRE CONSEQUENCES if changed along ( as it did indded happened and it SHOULD happen, human nature after all).
or imagine chanell this bonus( after making it available and creating 60 levels for exampe,, could be more even) to vassals , not only allies(or create diffrent "hard limits" as how much each category can get... any human nation could willinglly get a HUMAN vassal by free will..) as the vassal will get tech bonus(depending on its provinces, tax, etc and the overlord gets boosted income to research even further while the vassal fights its war beeing "safe" on economic progress overall. this could make appealing having a LARGE nation beeing vassal of a SMALLER one to meet such ends. and the smaller nation can have greater influence then and even simulate certain empires "take overs" from within.(example that comes to mind: greek autonomy and eventual takeover of OE's economic "life")
would be nice to chanel that bonus( wich has GREAT impact for a "complete" game ; aka reaching 1819). the present system is too chaotic and simplistic as it is based on tech groups ONLY or very limited as such ( am i correct?). especially im mp( for better fun and real impact) but generally.
example: in mp (no matter how "arrogant" superior stance one nation has), it will always demand to have reliable allies. so lets say that i as nation "a" would research infra only and the ally nation "b" would do land. in the end BOTH our nations would profit from a general advancement at the detriment of others that were not as able to make such a strong "team" or hesitate in their objective and try to "bite" left and right with NO CONSEQUENCES over realistic outcomes of the history itself. yes, backstubbing is a FACT of life and nations will always do that, but neighborhood bonus would create DEPENDABLE relationships that would have DIRE CONSEQUENCES if changed along ( as it did indded happened and it SHOULD happen, human nature after all).
or imagine chanell this bonus( after making it available and creating 60 levels for exampe,, could be more even) to vassals , not only allies(or create diffrent "hard limits" as how much each category can get... any human nation could willinglly get a HUMAN vassal by free will..) as the vassal will get tech bonus(depending on its provinces, tax, etc and the overlord gets boosted income to research even further while the vassal fights its war beeing "safe" on economic progress overall. this could make appealing having a LARGE nation beeing vassal of a SMALLER one to meet such ends. and the smaller nation can have greater influence then and even simulate certain empires "take overs" from within.(example that comes to mind: greek autonomy and eventual takeover of OE's economic "life")
beregic said:also , to me, would make absolute no logical sense to loose LEVELS( investment yes, but not WHOLE levels). i am glad that this particular aspect is not possible
That's fine if your mod involves normal history, not alternative outcomes, and if you are not interested in making an event or process be as accurate in effect as possible.
I want tools to produce outcomes. If another mod writer doesn't want to use them, for whatever reasons, that's just fine.
This situation is a real problem.YodaMaster said:
There SHOULD be no wars, either. Basically, you rule them all. They would have to break vassalization instead.beregic said:
A vassal could never go to war without the overlord's approval. If attacking another of the overlord's vassals, the vassal should be forced to take a stabhit, not the overlord. It is the vassal that is breaking the balance, not the overlord.beregic said:
If possible we should research how much it costs to learn a new tech. It is weird to see Mainz as a tech leader.
Mats_SX said:
Tthat would seem anything but REAL. vassals MOST of the time did war eachother in order to gain certain advantages from the overlord in the end. french minors come right away to mind.
but since i am always putting game play ahead of "accuracy" wherever that is not possible, i should ask: why would anyone play if there are no wars. so you would actually do what i mentioned in a post above as just WATCH the game...and WAIT for bb decrease os you can just annex someone else? :rofl:
i really prefer the current system; as i have a roleplaying to do in this cases. and the overlord taking the stab hit makes perfect sens to me. it shows his INABILITY to EFFICENTLLY create a "balance". yes it is possible to do so, believe me; maybe is just becouse i know who would dow who( swho has cores on whom) but in my games i almost NEVER have vassals war each other and the few times that DOES happen i make sure i get them both in alliance or NONE. i really do not see this is an issue at all. the current POLITICAL eu2 system is quiet good( i guess there can always be improvements).
my point is that one should be carefull not to loose certain specifics eu2 has and the diplomatic-political aspect is likelly the one right on top of the list.
to be honest i was going to give eu2 up a long time ago if it is not for the way vassals and diplomacy works in eu2. the war system is pretty lame in itself nothing special there. the trade and economy are SO-SO all comes down to numbers just like in any other game. but diplomacy and the political system ARE original, no need to change much...
Last edited:
- Status